Stylos is the blog of Jeff Riddle, a Reformed Baptist Pastor in North Garden, Virginia. The title "Stylos" is the Greek word for pillar. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul urges his readers to consider "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth."

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

I got a copy in the mail last week of my friend Poh Boon-Sing's new book on missiology: World Missions Today: A Theological, Exegetical, and Practical Perspective on Missions (Good News Enterprise, 2019): 277 pp. I look forward to reading and writing a review.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

I was continuing to read D. B. Hart’s translation of the NT
yesterday and in Ephesians 3:3-4 I was struck by Paul’s reference to his previous writings to the recipients. This is a passage I had read
before but not given much notice. Paul is discussing his special calling to
make known the “mystery” of Christ. Here it is in the KJV:

Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me
the mystery; (as I wrote [from prographō] afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in
the mystery of Christ)

The question is what Paul is referring to when he speaks of
what he had written before.

Was he speaking of the previous content found in
the opening two chapters? This was Matthew Poole’s deduction: “As I wrote afore; in the two former
chapters of this Epistle.”

An alternative possibility is that this refers to an earlier
letter. Compare Paul’s reference in 2 Corinthians 2:4 to his previous “painful” letter to the church at Corinth and the various theories of 2
Corinthians being a composite of several letters suggested in the modern
period. Consider also the reference in Colossians 4:16 to the "lost" letter to
the Laodiceans.

Calvin could say in his time that this was “the general opinion”:
“As I wrote a little before. This refers
either to a rapid glance at the same subject in the second chapter, or—which appears
to be the general opinion—to another Epistle.”

We might well ask what the writing was that Paul mentions
in Ephesians 3:3-4? Was it what we might call "1 Ephesians", with what we know as
“Ephesians” better considered as “2 Ephesians” [I am leaving aside the whole
question about whether “at Ephesus” in Eph 1:1 belongs to the authentic text. I,
of course, assume it does.]? Was it a letter or something else? A first-hand account of his conversion and
calling? A sermon or doctrinal tract? Theologically speaking, one would assume
that this “1 Ephesians”, whatever it was, was uninspired, or it would have been
included in the canon. Or, could it refer to another inspired, canonical book, or portion of a book, shared with
the Ephesians, in which Paul discussed these matters (Acts 9? Galatians 1-2? etc.)? I’m
not sure we’ll ever be able to answer this question in this age.

Monday, January 28, 2019

I preached Sunday on Christ’s prayer for future disciples as part
of his High Priestly prayer (John 17:20-26). A good bit of focus was given to
Christ’s prayer for unity: “That they all may be one….” (v. 21). I’ve also been
re-reading Calvin’s book IV of the Institutes
and had just been looking at Calvin’s defense of the Protestant movement against
charges of it being schismatic in chapter 2. Ever since I ran into Dr. Anthony
Lane at the Calvin Congress last August I’ve been intrigued by Calvin’s use of
the Church Fathers. I had picked out Calvin’s quotation from Cyprian to share in
the sermon on Sunday but did not get time to use it, so I thought I’d share it
here (from Institutes 4.2.6):

Cyprian, also following Paul, derives the source of concord of the
entire church from Christ’s episcopate alone. Afterward he adds:

The church is one,
which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of
fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun but one light, and many
branches of a tree but one strong trunk grounded in its tenacious root, and
since from one spring flow many streams, although a goodly number seem
outpoured from their bounty and superabundance, still at the source unity
abides. Take a ray from the body of the sun; its unity undergoes no division.
Break a branch from a tree; the severed branch cannot sprout. Cut off a stream
from its source; cut off, it dries up. So also the church, bathed in the light
of the Lord, extends over the whole earth: yet there is one light diffused
everywhere.

Nothing more fitting could be said to express this indivisible
connection which all members of Christ have with one another.

Ward's case against contemporary use of the KJV is primarily
based on an argument that it is no longer adequately intelligible for modern
readers.

Here are the four objections to the book's thesis I cover in the review:First,
Ward’s rhetoric against the KJV is inconsistent and unconvincing...Second,
Ward’s arguments against the KJV’s intelligibility are not compelling...Third,
Ward wrongly overlooks the significance of textual matters in evaluating both the
KJV and modern translations....Fourth,
Ward’s approach assumes that the problem of understanding the Bible can largely
be explained by naturalistic reasons, rather than supernaturalistic ones....And the two closing paragraphs:

In
conclusion, this critique of the KJV is unusual in that it does not come from a
Calvinistic evangelical perspective (like previous popular works by D. A.
Carson [1978] and James White [1995]), but from one with a fundamentalist background.
This likely reflects an unease by at least some in those circles, like Ward,
who do not wish to be stigmatized by their tribe’s use of the KJV or, worse
yet, to be given the dreaded label of “KJV-Onlyists.” The question remains,
however, as to whether one should abandon use of the KJV merely because some
wrongly hold a fetishist view of this translation, or because some who prefer
it are falsely labeled as KJV-Onlyist.

Ward does
not convince this reviewer that the KJV is not “sufficiently readable” and thus
inadequate for use as a “main translation.” Few would object that it might be
profitable to compare various translations in personal study. It is better still
to know the Biblical languages. This does not mean, however, that the KJV has
lost its readability and relevancy, or that it must be replaced by those who
prefer it.

Friday, January 25, 2019

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the
world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom
thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are (John 17:11).

In
Christ’s High Priestly Prayer, the Lord Jesus prays especially for his original
disciples, the apostles (see John 17:6-19).

In
v. 11, Christ prays that the Father will keep the apostles, that is, that he
will help them to persevere in the faith. He then prays that they will be given
unity: “that they may be one, as we are”
(v. 11b). He asks the Father to give the apostles the same unity that is
enjoyed by the Father and the Son within the triune Godhead. He offers this petition
for the original disciples, even as he will make a similar request for future
generations of disciples later in this prayer (see v. 21: “That they all may be
one….”).

Consider
for just a second, how Christ’s prayer for unity among the apostles was
answered by the Father.After the death,
burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the body of believers was not
divided into eleven or twelve different movements, but one movement. The
apostles remained united in Christ.

Think
about the opening chapter of 1 Corinthians when Paul says that he has heard
that believers have been divided into factions, with some saying, I follow
Paul, others saying, I follow Cephas [Peter], others, I follow Apollos [a
gifted early teacher], and some, I follow Christ (see 1 Cor 1:12).

Paul’s
response is brilliant. He does not say, Tell those who follow Peter to get in
line and begin to follow me! No, he says, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul
crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (v. 13).

Why
were the apostles able to have unity? Because they did not want any glory for
themselves, but they wanted to give all the glory to Christ alone. And they had
this in answer to Christ’s intercession for them.

Christ
prayed for unity among the apostles and that prayer was answered by the Father.
May he continue to keep and to give unity to those of us who have come to believe
in Christ through their word.

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Related to discussion in WM 114 about Scrivener's Greek NT being based on Beza's printed TR of 1598, I have uploaded an audio version of Scrivener's Preface to The New Testament in Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version (Cambridge University Press, 1881, 1949): pp. v-vi. Listen to the audio here.

Friday, January 18, 2019

These words spake
Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come;
glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee (John 17:1).

We learn about fitting prayer through Christ’s actions and example
as he begins his High Priestly Prayer (John 17).

His prayer was one spoken aloud: “These words spake Jesus….” There
is a place for quiet prayer, for meditation, for speaking from the heart for
only God to hear, but there is also a place for spoken prayer. Prayer is
preeminently vertical, but when spoken aloud it is also horizontal, meant to
exhort and encourage others. Christ spoke in this prayer to the Father, but he
spoke also to his disciples.

And he “lifted up his eyes to heaven.” We usually think of prayer
with eyes closed and head bowed, but Christ prayed with his eyes open and his head
uplifted to the Father. Scripture gives warrant for many ways to express
prayer. In Luke 18:13 Jesus says that the publican when he prayed, “would not
lift up so much as his eyes unto
heaven.” In 1 Timothy 2:8 Paul speaks of men praying everywhere “lifting up
holy hands.”

Calvin notes that Christ’s posture indicates “an uncommon ardor
and vehemence.” He adds that it was fitting for Christ to pray in this manner
“for he had nothing about him of which he ought to be ashamed.”

Calvin also says that when we pray we should not be so much
concerned with the “outward gesture” as “the inward feeling” which directs “the
eyes, the hands, the tongue, and everything about us.”

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

This essay consists of two parts. Part One is on “The
Knowledge of the Creator” and Part Two on “The Knowledge of the Redeemer.” This
reflects the design of the opening two books of the Institutes, since “The
first books deals with the knowledge of the Creator; the second with the
Knowledge of the Redeemer” (2). For Parker, the Institutes is the “chief source for our understanding Calvin’s
doctrine of the Knowledge of God” (3).

Some notes from Part One: The Knowledge of the Creator:

Parker begins by contrasting the beginnings of Calvin’s Institutes and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica and his famous five
proofs for the existence of God.

“Calvin, however, presupposes the existence of God, on the
very ground, the validity of which St. Thomas denies, that men have an innate
knowledge of the existence of God” (7).

For Calvin all men have a sensus
divinitas. “All men, even atheists, the grossly wicked and the complacent
bourgeois, know that there is a God” (8). Thus, he does not need to argue for
God’s existence.

“The problem of the Knowledge of God is the problem of
revelation” (13).

God reveals himself in the opera Dei, the works of God, “by which Calvin means all the
creative and providential activity of God” (14).

Parker: “We shall be disappointed if we look for disparagement
of man in the pages of Calvin” (16).

“For Calvin the creation has no meaning in itself, apart from
the Creator” (17).

“The universe is a mirror in which is to be seen the effigies Dei, the portrait of God….
Thus, in creating the universe God made it a representation of himself” (18).

“For Calvin, history—public and private—is not a confused
miscellany of events and actions” (21).

“Man in his created state of purity was capable of the
knowledge of God…. But such a soul and mind ceased when Adam fell” (27).

“When the seed of religion is cherished man is not led by it
to the true worship of God, but into superstition or idolatry…. In this lies
the abuse of the sensus divinitatis”
(31).

“Although the universe does show forth God’s glory, man is too
blind to see it” (35).

Thus the oracula Dei
(as Calvin was fond of calling the Scriptures) are necessary to the
understanding of the opera Dei” (39).

“Calvin tells us, on the basis of the Biblical witness, that
the faculty of perceiving the Creator in His works is not merely impaired, but
lost; that man is not suffering from bad eyesight, but from total blindness”
(39).

Parker says Calvin’s “Rational Proofs to Confirm Belief in
the Scriptures” (Inst. 1.8) “collectively
constitute a blemish on Calvin’s doctrine of the Word of God which has had for
its progeny the busyness of fundamentalists to prove the truth of the bible to
the neglect of discovering and preaching the Truth of the Bible” (43)!

“Therefore, he regards the Scriptures as a school, the Holy
Spirit as a schoolmaster, and believers as the pupils” (46-47).

“The Scripture is a thread, guiding us though the labyrinth,
the enigma of the universe in which we live” (48).

“The oracula Dei
both confirm the opera Dei and in
turn are confirmed by them” (51).

Some notes from Part
Two: The Knowledge of the Redeemer:

Parker begins with Calvin’s “perfectly orthodox” view of the
Trinity from the first edition of the Institutes
(61).

He also notes that “Calvin’s knowledge of patristic theology
was not extensive” (61) and that “new quotations from the Fathers” were “being
continually added” to succeeding editions of the Institutes (62). The 1536 edition “is not remarkable for its
dependence on the past. Only 5 Fathers are directly cited: Ambrose (once), Augustine
(ten times), Jerome, Sozomenus and Tertullian (one each)” (62, n. 3).

“The identification of Jesus of Nazareth with the eternal
Word of God, made by faith on the authority of the Scriptural witness, means that
He is regarded as the valid revelation of God” (70).

“Jesus of Nazareth is the revelation of God” (74).

“For Christ is called the image of God on this ground, that
He makes God, in a manner, visible to us” (75).

“Calvin thus regards the death of Christ as the summa, the intensive focal point, of His
life, and hence places the emphasis upon it, but comprehending and not
excluding the rest of His life and actions” (86).

“We are not saved by contemplating Christ from a distance,
but by being united with Him…” (91).

“For Thomism, the knowledge of God is a part of epistemology;
i.e., it is a part of our general knowledge and differs from other sorts of
knowledge in that its object is different. For Calvin, however, the knowing
itself differs from general knowing” (101, n. 3).

“There is, then, according to Calvin, a certain knowledge
which precedes and begets faith; which is indeed a praeparatio fidei” (102).

“The knowledge of God cannot be regarded as one of the
branches of epistemology, but differs fundamentally from all other forms of
knowing” (106).

“Knowing God is a unique activity in man’s experience, having
its own categories” (106).

“The fall, for the Thomists (although by making a closer
connection between the nature of man and the dona superaddita than the Scotists, they were committed to holding
that the loss of the one meant at least the impairing of the other) was not the
irreparable cataclysm of human nature that it was for the Reformers. Whatever
qualifications are made, the final Thomist word is that man’s soul is wounded,
but not dead” (107).

On the debate as to whether Calvin held the analogia entis, see 109 ff.

“…Calvin admits a certain likeness between the mind of man
and the mind of God” (109).

“Calvin does not use this likeness between God and man in the
way that Thomism and Calvinism do” (110).

Man has not lost his “natural endowments” but his “supernatural
endowments” (111).

Finally, the book has
an Appendix: a book review of E. A. Downey, The
Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (1952).

Parker does not approve of Downey’s view of Calvin on creation
and revelation:

“There can be no doubt that Calvin must be cleared of any
charge of being a natural theologian, or of having an ‘apologetic’ programme”
(125).

Monday, January 14, 2019

I have uploaded WM 115: Review: "Beza and Revelation 16:5" (Listen here). This episode has three parts: (1) Introduction; (2) A review of the online article "Beza and Revelation 16:5"; and (3) Three Final Thoughts/Reflections.

Introduction:

In WM
114 I offered ten observations on a recent lecture from apologist JW on
“Text Criticism and the TR” which ended up being a review of a twitter exchange
between JW and someone going under the name “Textus Receptus” regarding the
text of Revelation 16:5, which is one of just a few places where there is
significant divided reading in the printed editions of the TR. Beza’s 1598 TR
reads “which art, and wast, and shalt be” (so rendered in the KJV), whereas
earlier editions like Erasmus’ 1516 TR reads “which art, and wast,…and holy”
(as in Tyndale, Geneva Bible, etc.).

Gathering from what I heard by email and text this was a
much-discussed topic last week.

I discovered a couple things:

First: The twitter disputant with JW is a fellow from
Australia named Nick Sayers.

Third: One of Nick’s key sources for his booklet is an online
article on the website kjvtoday.com titled “Beza
and Revelation 16:5” (about 16 pages in length in a printer friendly
version).

So, I thought it would be helpful to read this shorter article
first and offer a review of and some reflections upon it.

This is a very well written and thoughtful article—hardly the
mad ravings of the straw-man KJV Onlyist—though I do wish it had a name, date,
and some better documentation, at points, of sources cited.

The article makes a generally reasonable and compelling
argument as to why Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 should be taken seriously
and not simply discarded or rejected without critical examination (and
certainly not villainized, as JW does). There are also, however, some weaker
and less compelling arguments within the article.

Review of online article: “Beza and Revelation
16:5”:

Here is a review of some of what I see as the stronger and
weaker points made within the article:

First: Nice introductory statement:

“Since there is no existing manuscript with Beza's reading,
critics dismiss Beza's reading as an unwarranted conjectural emendation.
However, an in-depth study of the issue will reveal enough evidence to validate
Beza's conjectural emendation.”

Second: It provides an English translation
of Beza’s footnote, but does not provide a transliteration of the original
Latin note or identify the translator (the author? His credentials for making
the translation?).

One of the things I would be most interested to know is
whether Beza made a pure conjectural emendation or if he had some manuscript
evidence to support this reading.

The article observes: “Although Beza is silent, he could have
been influenced in making his change based on a minority Latin textual
variant. There are two Latin commentaries with readings of Revelation
16:5 which agree with Beza in referring to the future aspect of God.”

These are later identified as Beatus of Liebana (c. 8th
century) and Haimo Halberstadensis (9th century).

Third: It provides references to two Church
Fathers who made use of the Greek term ho
esomenos in reference to God: Clement of Alexandria (third century), The
Stromata, V.6; and Gregory of Nyssa (fourth century), On the Baptism of Christ (no reference notion given).

I agree that this information is by no means a “red herring.”

Fourth:It rightly stresses the fact that the text of Revelation was perhaps the
most corrupted of the NT books through the transmission process, and this has
ramifications that would perhaps argue in favor of emendation [Though I’d still
rather leave it as an open question as to whether Beza’s emendation was a
“pure” conjecture].

Opening statement
here: “Conjectural emendations are justified if we know that the text we are
dealing with has a history of extensive and early corruption. The book of
Revelation is such a text… We trust that God was able to preserve the true
reading of Revelation 16:5 until the advent of the printing press during the
Reformation.”

Fifth: A good point was made related to a
scribal error in p47 at Revelation 15:4 omitting the word “holy”: “If there is
evidence of a scribal error involving "οσιος" at Revelation 15:4, it
seems reasonable to suspect a scribal error involving the same word just one
chapter later at Revelation 16:5.”

Sixth: Excellent point made about the
parallel omission of kai ho erchomenos
in the modern critical or Majority texts at Revelation 11:17, but, in this
case, there is supporting Greek evidence for the TR reading.

Seventh: The article rightly points out the paucity of
extant early mss. evidence for Revelation. It states that there are only 4 ms.
of Rev 16:4 from before the tenth century and that p47 is the only papyrus ms.
to include Rev 16:5.

I
made a similar point in WM 114 in observation # 8 citing, Tobias Niklas, “The Early Text of Revelation” in Charles E.
Hill & Michael J. Kruger, Eds., The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 2012): 225-238.

I think the article errs, however, in suggesting
a degenerating chain from

p47 kai
hosios

to Sinaiticus ho
hosios

to Alexandrinus hosios

This is speculative and assumes without proof a
connection between these three mss. These changes are more likely to have
evolved independently.

Eighth: The article
provides four theories for how Revelation 16:5 might have become corrupted.

Theory 1: John wrote ho esomenos in nomen sacrum
from.

Theory 2: Bad conditions gave rise to corruption.

Theory 3: A scribe harmonized 16:5 with 11:17.

Theory 4: A Hebraist imposed Hebraic style onto
the text.

Of these I find Theories 2 and 3 to be credible,
and Theories 1 and 4 to be suspect.

Theory 1 is highly speculative. Examples:

“Perhaps the Apostle John himself wrote the words that refer
to God in "κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος" (O Lord, which art,
and wast, and shalt be) in an abbreviated nomina sacra form.”

“In nomen sacrum form, ‘ο εσομενος’ might be abbreviated as
OЄC.”

The problem: This seems highly speculative to me. Just note
how many times the words “may” “perhaps” or “might” is used by the article’s
author. This is not one of the usual nomina
sacra and there are no extant examples of it (see James
Snapp’s online article). The argument for this in Sinaiticus without
overlining seems strained to me.

Theory 4 based on the suggestion that Jewish readers would
have taken the future participle as superfluous to indicating the name of God
also seems strained and speculative.

Three Final Thoughts/Reflections:

First: Revelation 16:5,
the Textus Receptus, and the KJV

Interpretation of Revelation 16:5 raises the question of what
the standard text of the TR should be.

I think there is room in the TR camp both for those who
follow the Erasmus/Tyndale reading and those who follow the Beza/KJV reading
here.

I think the best reasons to accept the Beza/KJV reading at
Revelation 16:5 are the following:

-The text of Revelation was corrupted in its early transmission
and it is admitted by all to be difficult to reconstruct.

-p47 at least provides evidence for the conjunction kai in the earliest extant mss.

-The reading ho
esomenos, however, argues for originality, in part, based on its
uniqueness. If invented for the purposes of harmonization why would it not have
read ho erchomenos, as at Rev 1:4,
8; 4:8; and 11:17?

-We do not completely understand all the evidence
and reasoning of Beza and the KJV translators in choosing this reading, but we
might reasonably assume they had compelling reasons to adopt it, especially since
it went against the tide of respected earlier editions of the TR and,
especially, English translations of it.

-One can see the inclusion of this reading in the
KJV as of providential importance without arguing for the KJV as a product of
special revelation (a view which would be contrary to WCF 1:8).

Second: On
the most difficult to defend TR readings and the propriety of conjectures:

I think that in general we would prefer to have
TR readings supported by at least some extant Greek NT mss, even if they represent
a minority of mss., which may also be late mss. In addition, we would prefer to
have early versional and Patristic evidence. Thankfully, we usually have this.

We should recognize, however, that the NT books
which were acknowledged the latest in the canonical recognition process will provide
the least sufficient and reliable extant evidence. Our most difficult texts to
defend will not most generally be with the Gospels or Pauline epistles but with
Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation.

This admission goes against a standard
conservative evangelical apologetic which has typically stressed the great
number of existing NT mss. whatever their date, content, and condition.

Finally, this raises the question of the
propriety of conjectures. As the author of the article noted, this was not a
problem of Bruce Metzger (see the quote in the article from The Text of the NT, 182). It is not a problem
for the modern editors of the NA28 using the CBGM (see the rendering of 2 Peter
3:10). So, it is affirmed in both modern and post-modern text criticism.

This brought to my mind the modern
historical-critical study of the Synoptic Gospels and the conjecture of a hypothetical
reconstructed sayings source Q. Such a view is embraced by evangelical scholars
like Craig A Evans, who argued for the “two source” in the recent book The Synoptic Gospel: Four Views (Baker
Academic, 2016). I find it ironic that Evans’s and others’s embrace of Q (an
entire hypothetical book with no external support) does not raise an eyebrow,
while Beza’s supposed conjecture of perhaps few words in Revelation 16:5 is
pilloried as outrageous and absurd?

This is another reason I was puzzled by JW’s stated
rejection of any conjectural emendations. Does this mean he rejects Metzger? The
CBGM? The NA28, 29, 30…?

Third: On Method:

First,
I think the historical study of the text of the Bible (textual criticism) is
vital and a discipline from which we have nothing to fear. Second, I think
defenders of the TR can and should make able use of historical evidence yielded
by this field of study. Given this, however, I also think we should be careful
not to fall into the trap of thinking we might simply use the modern
reconstructionist method to defend the TR. This is perhaps the biggest problem
I perceive with the article reviewed. It does not explicitly rely on a confessional method. If you try to fight
the modern “methodists” only with their method, in their eyes you will always
come up short.

I
thought this comment from Maurice Robinson on the Evangelical Text Criticism
blog related to the discussion of my review of the THGNT (here)
was perceptive:

In
terms of attempting to establish the original text (or the Ausgangstext if one is so inclined), a "TR-priority"
position indeed is illogical, as Mr Spock would say.

However, within the "Confessional Bibliology" or
"Ecclesiastical Text" framework, holding such a position actually
appears quite reasonable to its practitioners, much in the same way that the
Greek Orthodox church remains quite content to use a form of the 1904/1912
Antoniades text for all their practical purposes, even though from a more
scientific text-critical standpoint (including my own) their position is equally
defective.

Friday, January 11, 2019

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he
should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him (John 17:2).

Within
his High Priestly Prayer, Christ addresses the Father, “As thou hast given him
[the Son, a reference to himself] power [exousia,
authority] over all flesh….” (v. 2a)

Compare
the risen Christ’s words to his apostles in Matthew 28:18: “All power [exousia] is given unto me in heaven and
on earth.”

This
authority is a special exercise of
sovereign power which the Father has
bestowed upon the Son from eternity past. It is the power of salvation: “that
he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him” (v. 2b).

Notice
it is not: “that he should give eternal life to all men without exception on
the condition of their free will acceptance of the gospel.” No, the Son has
been given authority by the Father to give eternal life to those who have been
given to the Son. The Father gives them to the Son (election) and the Son gives
to them eternal life (salvation). This is God’s plan of salvation from eternity
past. Those whom the Father sovereignly chooses, the Son perfectly saves.

Compare
Luke’s description in Acts 13:48b of Paul and Barnabas’s ministry in Pisidian
Antioch: “And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

Calvin
observed: “it is only the elect who belong to his peculiar flock, which he has
undertaken to guard as shepherd.” Though his kingdom extends to all men, “it
brings salvation to none but the elect.”

Let
us then consider with thanksgiving Christ’s power: If we are counted among the
elect of God and have been saved by his grace, it has only been by the power of
Christ.

Wednesday, January 09, 2019

I was preaching last Sunday at the RB church plant in Lynchburg and after services one of the brethren gave me a late Christmas present he had picked up at a used bookstore, a six book set of the four volumes of Henry Alford's Greek New Testament and Commentary.

In Metzger and Ehrman's The Text of the New Testament it is noted that Henry Alford (1810-1871) was dean of Canterbury and the author of several popular hymns, including "Come, Ye Thankful People, Come." He was also "an ardent advocate of the critical principles formulated by those who, like Lachmann, had worked for the 'demolition of the unworthy and pedantic reverence for the received text, which stood in the way of all chance of discovering the genuine word of God'" (p. 174; the embedded quote is from Alford's The Greek New Testament with a Critically Revised Text).

I'm thankful for this new resource to add to my library and to use, no doubt to what would have been Alford's chagrin, to defend the received text.